Editorial: High court of little help with guns and public safety

Tuesday

Jun 29, 2010 at 12:01 AMJun 29, 2010 at 5:04 PM

On Monday a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment also trumps state and local statutes, not just attempts by Uncle Sam to curtail individual gun ownership. It was no great surprise, as the court had signaled its intentions two years ago when it ruled the District of Columbia's handgun ban unconstitutional, also by 5-4 vote.

On Monday a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment also trumps state and local statutes, not just attempts by Uncle Sam to curtail individual gun ownership. It was no great surprise, as the court had signaled its intentions two years ago when it ruled the District of Columbia's handgun ban unconstitutional, also by 5-4 vote.

Some gun rights advocates celebrated, but that's premature, as the high court dodged multiple critical questions, passing the buck to lower courts with precious little direction in a seeming expression of the discomfort justices - on both sides of this court's ideological divide - have with this issue.

Indeed, the court did not even rule specifically on the constitutionality of the strictest-in-the-nation Chicago and Oak Park handgun bans that prompted its intervention here. The prohibitions technically remain in effect, for now. The author of the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, actually seemed to hedge, noting that "despite doomsday proclamations," the ruling "does not imperil every law regulating firearms." He opened the door to "reasonable regulations" - whatever that means - from states and municipalities, permitting them "to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values." In particular Alito was at pains to preserve the constitutionality of excluding the likes of felons and the mentally ill from owning guns, as well as shielding places such as schools and government buildings - like the one he works in.

While gun control advocates understandably sought refuge in that part of the decision, it would seem to expose a certain hypocrisy, which Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has been eager to exploit, as he did in a radio interview this spring: "If a gun is so important to use on the street or someone's home, why can't I go to the Supreme Court and sit there with a gun? I'm not gonna shoot anyone."

Meanwhile, dare we note that the conservative, states' rights faction that prevailed here did so with a decision that undercuts states' rights? Indeed, for the originalists in our midst, the Bill of Rights of which the Second Amendment is a part merely put the brakes on the federal government.

As contradictions go, on the flip side Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his final dissent before retiring that just as guns "can help homeowners defend their families and property from intruders, they can help thugs and insurrectionists murder innocent victims. The threat that firearms will be misused is far from hypothetical, for gun crimes have devastated many of our communities." Indeed they have, but that also betrays the weakness of both his and Daley's arguments, as the ban they defend so vigorously has, if the facts are any indication, failed to enhance public safety.

Twenty-six people were shot in Chicago just this past weekend, even with this prohibition on guns. Isn't this the same city where a couple of state legislators urged the mayor and governor to call out the National Guard to confront the violence earlier this spring? That was not lost on Alito: "The legislators noted that the number of Chicago homicide victims during the current year equaled the number of American soldiers killed during that same period in Afghanistan and Iraq." Daley and Stevens apparently would preserve a status quo that arguably allows only criminals to be armed.

Nevertheless, count us - and Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association - among the unsurprised that a Daley would never surrender so easily. Indeed, LaPierre quite realistically tempered his enthusiasm for the ruling, expressing his concern that a "constitutional victory" would be "turned into a practical defeat by defiant city councils and cynical politicians who seek to nullify ... this decision through a byzantine labyrinth of regulations and restrictions" to render gun ownership "unaffordable and inaccessible."

Daley is hoping to oblige, already talking of getting around this Supreme Court decision by forcing owners to register their guns, to undergo mandatory training, to submit to routine criminal background checks including fingerprinting and pre-emptive ballistics testing, to purchase insurance and to pay higher taxes for the privilege. This is far from over. The attorneys are no doubt salivating.

Ultimately, we just think most Americans - our very human Supreme Court justices included - tend to have very visceral and often conflicting feelings about this issue that don't always lend themselves to airtight intellectual arguments. That would include the Founders, who despite facing a reality with "only a limited bearing on the question that confronts the homeowner in a crime-infested metropolis today," as Stevens noted, still authored a Second Amendment so vague it has invited more than a century of debate as to what exactly they intended. Some readers no doubt entertain no ambivalence about gun ownership, but that's not where most folks live. The latter believe citizens ought to be able to defend themselves against attack and intimidation but are not comfortable with the idea that anybody they run into anywhere might be armed and potentially dangerous.

If only the Founders had made themselves clearer. If only this Supreme Court had. If only we were confident this outcome would make our communities safer.

As one Chicago alderwoman said in reaction, "I don't think this ruling makes a bit of difference. It does nothing to take guns out of the hands of bad guys." And as a Chicago legislator said earlier, "I'm tired of seeing little kids get shot." On this most controversial of issues, might that latter sentiment be something we can all share and, as a society, try to correct? That should be the goal, as a court and as a people.